Most of the legislative privacy buzz this session has centered around online behavioral advertising (OBA) — along with the Federal Trade Commission’s proposal for a universal “do-not-track.”
The center of discussion for U.S. legislators and regulators has been clear and conspicuous disclosure to users about OBA and to allow opt-outs. Regulators on the EU are engaged in the ‘great cookie debate” over whether the EU privacy laws require a user’s explicit consent to OBA or whether opt-out would be sufficient.
Two privacy experts argue in a new paper that they are all missing the point and this paper is excellent reading. Omar Tene, a fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Jules Polonetsky, co-chair and co-director of the Future of Privacy Forum think tank write:
Unless policymakers address this underlying normative question — is online behavioral tracking a social good or an unnecessary evil — they may not be able to find a solution for implementing user choice in the context of online privacy…..This is not to say that a value judgment needs to be as stark as a binary choice between privacy and efficiency. On the contrary, a more nuanced equilibrium is needed taking into account the benefits of not only privacy rights but also access to information and services, freedom of speech and economic efficiency.
Subscribe with RSS
